I know someone who doesn't vote so I'm going to vote for him this year - good thing we don't require an ID here. I also rob mailboxes for outgoing ballots and then vote in their name. It does get a little awkward when the people at the polls ask if they've seen me before that day but I just tell 'em fark you - don't disenfranchise me. I also egg the houses of people who send in mail-in ballots that don't vote for my candidate.

Doctor Funkenstein:Pennsylvania's House GOP leader straight up said our shiny new voting law means that Romney can win PA. He doesn't even mince words about it. Disgusting.

I think he's WAY too optimistic about that. This is something that MIGHT keep less than 1% or so of people from voting, and Obama took PA by a rather sound margin last time (double digits or thereabouts if I recall). I doubt this will deliver the state to Rmoney.

As for requiring ID, if such ID is available for free, I suppose it doesn't amount to a poll tax however the fact of the matter is that such laws are designed specifically with the intent of keeping certain demographics from voting, I don't think there's any way to disguise that intent. At least PA's house GOP leader was honest.

nekom:Doctor Funkenstein: Pennsylvania's House GOP leader straight up said our shiny new voting law means that Romney can win PA. He doesn't even mince words about it. Disgusting.

I think he's WAY too optimistic about that. This is something that MIGHT keep less than 1% or so of people from voting, and Obama took PA by a rather sound margin last time (double digits or thereabouts if I recall). I doubt this will deliver the state to Rmoney.

As for requiring ID, if such ID is available for free, I suppose it doesn't amount to a poll tax however the fact of the matter is that such laws are designed specifically with the intent of keeping certain demographics from voting, I don't think there's any way to disguise that intent. At least PA's house GOP leader was honest.

I totally agree with you. I'm just really taken aback about how cavalier he is with its intention. I guess I shouldn't be after their behavior over the last few years.

nekom:This is something that MIGHT keep less than 1% or so of people from voting

What is so infuriating- the same people that scream about 'voter fraud', the people that can't point to any actual fraudulent votes but are sure it happens all the time (as the Daily show pointed out "Vote fraud is as prevalent as they can imagine"), the same people that scream that even 1 fraudulent vote is too many "because it disenfranchises a legitimate vote", actually applaud rules that verifiably disenfranchise hundreds if not thousands of legitimate voters. The anti-democratic, anti-American GOP at work.

Putting unnecessary restrictions on something that is a very basic right is the definition of encroaching.

By the way, blinding adhering to every law does not make you patriotic. It makes you ignorant.

Cool. I guess we can all just stop adhering to the law. Dear leader can lead the way as a perfect example.

Oh wow. I didn't realize that your reading comprehension impairment was so pronounced. I'm sorry. I honestly didn't know that I was trying to carry on a conversation with someone so . . . special and unique!

I'm very sorry.

Do your parents know that you're on the internet? Do you need me to call them?

Except these rules were strictly prohibited BECAUSE they restrict the right to vote in the past. It was called Jim Crow, and you're defending it.

Nope, not restricting. Preserving. I don't want my legally cast vote...or yours either...negated by one that isn't. All this crap about Jim Crow laws and poll taxes is a smokescreen used by those who want citizens and non-citizens alike to be able to vote in our elections. /.02

Putting unnecessary restrictions on something that is a very basic right is the definition of encroaching.

By the way, blinding adhering to every law does not make you patriotic. It makes you ignorant.

Cool. I guess we can all just stop adhering to the law. Dear leader can lead the way as a perfect example.

Oh wow. I didn't realize that your reading comprehension impairment was so pronounced. I'm sorry. I honestly didn't know that I was trying to carry on a conversation with someone so . . . special and unique!

I'm very sorry.

Do your parents know that you're on the internet? Do you need me to call them?

Is this where I respond with something equally childish like "I know you are, but what am I?"

Except these rules were strictly prohibited BECAUSE they restrict the right to vote in the past. It was called Jim Crow, and you're defending it.

Nope, not restricting. Preserving. I don't want my legally cast vote...or yours either...negated by one that isn't. All this crap about Jim Crow laws and poll taxes is a smokescreen used by those who want citizens and non-citizens alike to be able to vote in our elections. /.02

Restricting: present participle of re·strict (Verb)Verb:

Put a limit on; control. Deprive (someone or something) of freedom of movement or action.

In other words, by implementing a NEW law that says someone cannot vote until X, is a way of restricting their access to voting.

Putting unnecessary restrictions on something that is a very basic right is the definition of encroaching.

By the way, blinding adhering to every law does not make you patriotic. It makes you ignorant.

Cool. I guess we can all just stop adhering to the law. Dear leader can lead the way as a perfect example.

Oh wow. I didn't realize that your reading comprehension impairment was so pronounced. I'm sorry. I honestly didn't know that I was trying to carry on a conversation with someone so . . . special and unique!

I'm very sorry.

Do your parents know that you're on the internet? Do you need me to call them?

Is this where I respond with something equally childish like "I know you are, but what am I?"

No response needed. I didn't accuse you of being childish. I accused you of being mentally disabled.

I simply assumed that since you've confused: "blind adherence" to anarchy that there must be some sort of disability that prevents your ability to comprehend.

Yes, you are. I was hoping that you were a good enough person that when it was directly pointed out that you are cheering Jim Crow laws that you would realize you were a farkhead, but if you're cheering Jim Crow, that's pretty unlikely. It was worth the shot though.

Are there not Id requirements to receive welfare benefits as well, subby? Seems like there should be. Otherwise I could just keep walking through line giving a different bogus name.

I stopped reading TFA immediately after that sob story about the poor folks who didn't farking pay attention to the rules and got bit in the ass for it. If you're too inattentive to figure out what you need to bring to the polling office, you're probably too inattentive to have a clue about the issues you're voting on.

Except these rules were strictly prohibited BECAUSE they restrict the right to vote in the past. It was called Jim Crow, and you're defending it.

Nope, not restricting. Preserving. I don't want my legally cast vote...or yours either...negated by one that isn't. All this crap about Jim Crow laws and poll taxes is a smokescreen used by those who want citizens and non-citizens alike to be able to vote in our elections. /.02

Got it. So you advocate disenfranchising a whole class of voters so that one or two illegal votes, if that, don't occur. Good to know where you stand.

It's generally an article of faith that voter fraud happens. Don't pretend that it's not a bi-partisan fear, either. Just look at the conspiracy theories about 2004 and Ohio for the liberal side. There's a deep mistrust in politics for opposing views - people simply cannot believe the other person came to their opinions honestly: they're shills, or fools, or a front for some mysterious puppet-master.

The voter-ID laws are a manifestation of that fear among conservatives. People who really want these laws just know that voter-fraud is wide-spread. Just like liberals just know the MIC runs our foreign policy.

I consider this a waste of time and money, and really kind of bothersome that it disenfranchises a lot of legitimate voters. It should bother ANYONE. The government should NEVER be allowed to take a position that it's ok to fark over non-trivial number of its citizens in the pursuit of a few wrong-doers.

I think that this needs an NRA solution: significantly increase the penalty for voter fraud, embark on a few high-profile cases, and make examples of some people.

serial_crusher:Are there not Id requirements to receive welfare benefits as well, subby? Seems like there should be. Otherwise I could just keep walking through line giving a different bogus name.

I stopped reading TFA immediately after that sob story about the poor folks who didn't farking pay attention to the rules and got bit in the ass for it. If you're too inattentive to figure out what you need to bring to the polling office, you're probably too inattentive to have a clue about the issues you're voting on.

Right. How dare someone not understand the new hoops they'll be required to jump through for something they've always been told was both a right and a duty.

I swear . . . those people are obnoxious. It's like, "Oh my God. Can't you just take the morning off work, find transportation to the other side of town (since we've closed ALL of the offices nearest to you), wait in line for hours to pay for the ID, and then find transportation back? What are you . . . like poor?"

Never mind that I've implemented these rules specifically to restrict your access to voting. It's clearly your fault for not paying attention.

Except these rules were strictly prohibited BECAUSE they restrict the right to vote in the past. It was called Jim Crow, and you're defending it.

Laws that restrict the right to vote in the past are probably a good thing. I don't want time travelers negating my existence or anything.

I kid, I kid. In all seriousness, I think the "hey, somebody used voting regulations for evil a hundred years ago" argument is a silly one. The problem wasn't that they had rules. the problem was that they had unreasonable ones.If you can show that a given rule is as terrible as the Jim Crow laws were, then strike that rule down, but don't just oppose any regulation on that principal.

serial_crusher:If you can show that a given rule is as terrible as the Jim Crow laws were, then strike that rule down, but don't just oppose any regulation on that principal.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it. People have been trying to point out why these voter ID laws are unreasonable for months, even years now. They're unreasonable because one particular class of voters, poor and/or minority, are especially impacted. The argument against this has been, "Well I could get ID, what the hell is the problem for these people?" without actually addressing what the problem is for those people.

The NY Times: Mr. Brown is accused in the lawsuit and in supporting documents of paying and organizing notaries, some of whom illegally marked absentee ballots or influenced how the ballots were voted; of publishing a list of voters, all white, accompanied by a warning that they would be challenged at the polls; of importing black voters into the county; and of altering racial percentages in districts by manipulating the registration rolls. Well, I'm glad that enacting Voter ID laws will completely eliminate this problem. It's obviously a nationwide phenomenon that goes consequence (like the lawsuit you've linked to).

EnviroDude:Add this one too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Louisian a,_1996

Oh, really great example there:

"Only a month into the probe, however, it emerged that Thomas "Papa Bear" Miller, a detective hired by Jenkins to investigate claims of fraud, had coached witnesses to claim they had participated in election fraud. Three witnesses claimed Miller had paid them to claim that they had either cast multiple votes for Landrieu or drove vans of illegal voters across town."

So basically what you're saying is that you have no proof unless it's invented. Good to know.

In order for elections to be fair, we must ensure that all votes are cast by the registered, legal voter. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Anything else is fraud, and thus renders the process invalid.

So the question is, how do we ensure that? I'm open to suggestions.

What if, when you register to vote, they take your picture and give you a voter card? That can't infringe on anything right? I mean you do have to register already. And say these cards are free. No one can have a problem with something like that can they?